34. The Court received documents presented as evidence by the Commission and the parties along with their main briefs (supra paras. 1, 5, and 6). In this case, as in others, the Court admits documents presented at the appropriate time, by the parties and the Commission, whose admissibility was not contested or challenged. 15 In addition, the Court received and hereby admits the expert opinion of Marcella da Fonte Carvalho, proposed by the State. It is noted that on August 7, 2019, the Commission withdrew the expert evidence it had offered and whose admission had been ordered in the July 23, 2019 Presidential Resolution (supra para. 8). VI FACTS 35. The facts of this case concern the deprivation of liberty of Mr. Carranza during a criminal trial against him. The Court notes that there is no dispute as to the facts. The statements made by the Commission, the representative, and the State regarding those facts are in substantial agreement. Consequently, the Court considers them established, based on the statements made by the Commission, the representative, and the State in their main briefs (supra paras. 1, 5, and 6), which are consistent with the evidence presented. Those facts are described below. A) Beginning of actions and detention of Mr. Carranza 36. On August 17, 1993, the superintendent in charge of the police station in the canton of Yaguachi, province of Guayas, ordered a preliminary investigation and issued an indictment against Mr. Carranza and one other person. These actions were prompted by events two days before, when a man had died of a gunshot wound, an incident witnessed by several people. The superintendent ordered the Rural Police to “apprehend” Mr. Carranza and the other person because “they were fugitives.” With regard to this, the State indicated that both “fled” on August 15, 1993, after the referenced events took place on that day. 16 In addition, based on Article 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the superintendent ordered the “preventive detention” of Mr. Carranza and the other person being charged. 37. Article 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter CCP), as the Court has already had occasion to note, established that the judge, “when he or she believes it to be necessary,” could order preventive detention when the following procedural facts exist: a) indications of a crime meriting a prison sentence, and b) indications that the defendant is a perpetrator or accomplice of the crime being prosecuted. Furthermore, the same article ordered that “the order specify the indications on which the detention is based.” 17 15 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, para. 140, and Case of Jenkins v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2019. Series C No. 397, para. 38. 16 According to the description of events in the August 17, 1993 “indictment,” Mr. Carranza fled on horseback right after the shots were fired on the 15th of the month (cf. August 17, 1993, Indictment. Evidence file, annex 2 of the Merits Report, folios 402 to 405). Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador, para. 104. In the Merits Report, the Commission referred to the indicated judgment when describing the text from Article 177. Furthermore, the Court understands that the text of the CCP is a public fact. 17 10